Trump's Legacy and the Futility of Biden's Bipartisanship

 

Historically, Republicans project the image of containing public spending, keeping the public debt low, and creating more wealth for society. From Reagan to Trump, history shows that spending for defense, intelligence, domestic security goes through the roof, at the same time that taxes of the rich are cut while indirect taxes paid by the mass consumer rise, and corporate subsidies replace social spending. 

 What has followed is a sharp rise in the public debt at the same time there is wealth concentration which leaves more people in or near the poverty level. When Trump won the election in 2016, government spending hovered around $4 trillion, with a $500 billion deficit, money borrowed from various domestic and foreign sources, including America’s largest trading partner China. In 2019, government spending was about $9 trillion. 

Because Trump and the Republicans gave back $2 trillion to the richest 1%, revenues were $3.5 trillion or the same as in 2016. This left a deficit of $5.5 trillion. By 2019, the Republican government was spending 150% more than the IRS was collecting, compelling the FED to increase the money supply to keep rates low amid underlying monetary inflation. Driven by Wall Street, FED policy also caved to Trump’s encouragement of a low-interest regime as a means of feeding the “financialization”- driven US economy.

The result has been the dollar's value falling against other currencies, held in check somewhat by the fact that the dollar is a reserved currency and other countries adjusting their currencies so as to maintain fair terms of trade. US debt $27 trillion in October 2020, or 136% of GDP as compared with $20 trillion or 104% of GDP in 2017, representing a 32% rise in four years, largely because of the $2 trillion in tax cuts to the richest 1% in 2017, combined with corporate welfare subsidies, rising defense budget and economic slump owing to the pandemic. 

Under Trump, not only has the US experienced a sharp rise in budgetary deficit and public debt, but also in the largest wealth concentration in its history. This while the poverty rate for 2020 is 10%, expected to rise much higher in 2021 as in the rest of the world, amid rental evictions, home foreclosures, and small business bankruptcies. For whites, the poverty rate is around 7% percent, while for Blacks at 16% and Hispanics 14%. These rates will rise sharply in 2021, as it is very likely that living standards for the bottom half of the population will continue to drop.

In spite of these realities in the American plutocratic system, 73,000,000 people voted for Trump. Republicans gained seats on the “down ballot” in the House of Representatives and at the state level, indicative that right wing politics has deep and long roots beyond Trump Republicanism. 

Considering the immense challenges of inequality and rising poverty that in-coming President Biden will be facing, his solution is the delusional 1970s bipartisanship method of governing. In essence, this translates to using Republican compromise strategy as leverage to marginalize the progressive policy agenda geared toward social justice that Biden confuses with appointments of people of color to key Cabinet positions. 

I fully expect that in the next congressional election in 2022, Republicans will win both houses of congress. By 2024, if there is general stagnation of living standards for the vast majority, as I expect there will be, it is entirely possible that someone more open to Fascism than Trump, without the boisterous personality of Trump, will emerge to lead the Republican Party.

Ten Realistic and Unrealistic Expectations of the Biden Administration

Those who supported Biden did so primarily to see America free of the Fascist-style president and Republican Party determined to bring the country as close to the Third Reich as possible. To be sure, there were many who backed Biden-Harris because they espouse the platform of the establishment Democratic Party. However, the demographics have changed, and the middle class has shrunk just as the majority of the population under the age of 25 is non-white. In short, the Democratic Party is not operating with the same demographic base today as in the 1970s.

Republicans voting for Biden did so to defeat Trump who was dogmatic about forcing all in the party accept him as the leader who determines the party platform and direction. Disgruntled Republicans also figured that Biden is a mainstream establishment Democrat closer to mainstream Republican issues on the economy, foreign affairs and defense. Progressive Democrats (mostly Sen. Sanders’ supporters) voted against Trump by voting for Biden, while hoping he would yield on some key progressive issues, including raising taxes on the rich, raising minimum wage, supporting Obamacare, protecting the environment and cultural/racial/ethnic diversity. Given the disparate policy goals of the three groups backing Biden, can there be policy divergence, especially if Republicans keep the Senate and block Biden’s agenda?

1.       It is realistic to expect some movement toward taxing the highest income groups, but unrealistic to expect raising taxes on the rich without Biden making concessions o some aspect of social programs, social security, Medicare/Medicaid.

2.       It is realistic to expect diversity of cabinet appointments as a pretext concession to the progressives, but totally unrealistic to expect concessions on a progressive agenda that is class-based instead of identity-politics based.

3.       It is realistic to expect the end of American unilateralism as a strategy to force other nations into submission, but unrealistic to expect the withering of American militarism and imperialism.

4.       It is realistic to expect the end of corporate welfare for non-renewable energy, but unrealistic to expect the end of corporate welfare which will simply be redirected to high tech, renewable energy and bio-tech.

5.       It is realistic to expect the end of persecuting illegal immigrants, but unrealistic to expect the end of marginalization of ethnic minorities.

6.       It is realistic to expect more high-visibility appointments of blacks, but unrealistic to expect the end of system racism, wage, housing, college, and criminal justice discrimination based on race.

7.       It is realistic to expect US re-engagement with international organizations on the environment, health and trade, but unrealistic to expect that the US will operate outside the confines of the neoliberal model that accounts for continued downward socioeconomic mobility.

8.       It is realistic to expect a US-China relationship rooted in multilateral diplomacy, namely US rallying all of its allies to force China to abandon quasi-statism (51% government ownership) and into the neoliberal model it wishes to impose on Beijing. It is unrealistic to expect much improvement in US-China relations, considering that China has far greater global leverage than the US and will use it as needed while negotiating its way to retaining the status quo.

9.       It is realistic to expect some movement toward rapprochement with Iran, but unrealistic to expect a lot of results, as Israel and Saudi Arabia will push back hard.

10. It is realistic to expect a tougher policy toward Russia, but unrealistic to expect Russia to cave to US demands on its strategic zone of influence inside the old USSR borders.